Here’s the entire thing if you don’t want to go to that link:

There were a series of accusations about our company last August from a former employee. Immediately following these accusations, LMG hired Roper Greyell - a large Vancouver-based law firm specializing in labor and employment law, to conduct a third-party investigation. Their website describes them as “one of the largest employment and labour law firms in Western Canada.” They work with both private and public sector employers.

To ensure a fair investigation, LMG did not comment or publicly release any data and asked our team members to do the same. Now that the investigation is complete, we’re able to provide a summary of the findings.

The investigation found that:

  • Claims of bullying and harassment were not substantiated.

  • Allegations that sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed were false.

  • Any concerns that were raised were investigated. Furthermore, from reviewing our history, the investigator is confident that if any other concerns had been raised, we would have investigated them.

  • There was no evidence of “abuse of power” or retaliation. The individual involved may not have agreed with our decisions or performance feedback, but our actions were for legitimate work-related purposes, and our business reasons were valid.

  • Allegations of process errors and miscommunication while onboarding this individual were partially substantiated, but the investigator found ample documentary evidence of LMG working to rectify the errors and the individual being treated generously and respectfully. When they had questions, they were responded to and addressed.

In summary, as confirmed by the investigation, the allegations made against the team were largely unfounded, misleading, and unfair.

With all of that said, in the spirit of ongoing improvement, the investigator shared their general recommendation that fast-growing workplaces should invest in continuing professional development. The investigator encouraged us to provide further training to our team about how to raise concerns to reinforce our existing workplace policies.

Prior to receiving this report, LMG solicited anonymous feedback from the team in an effort to ensure there was no unreported bullying and harassment and hosted a training session which reiterated our workplace policies and reinforced our reporting structure. LMG will continue to assess ongoing continuing education for our team.

At this time, we feel our case for a defamation suit would be very strong; however, our deepest wish is to simply put all of this behind us. We hope that will be the case, given the investigator’s clear findings that the allegations made online were misrepresentations of what actually occurred. We will continue to assess if there is persistent reputational damage or further defamation.

This doesn’t mean our company is perfect and our journey is over. We are continuously learning and trying to do better. Thank you all for being part of our community.

  • olosta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    7 months ago

    They said at the time “We are committed to publishing the findings”. This has not happened yet as far as I know, and it’s critical. Accusations were specific, the investigation findings can’t be vague.

    • RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      7 months ago

      Those are the findings of the report - what kind of specifics were you expecting?

      • olosta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        7 months ago

        A break down of all the allegations with what evidence (testimonies, electronic messages…) they took into consideration before coming to the conclusion that the claim was false.

        • FoolHen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          29
          ·
          7 months ago

          That’s not gonna happen. They can’t publish private business and personal communications, names and data with the public. The point of hiring an external company is that they audit the case and come to a conclusion, and for the company to be reputable they must not be biased. If you don’t believe the conclusion why would you believe the details? They could also be manufactured or cherry picked.

            • bitfucker@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Anonymized is still risky as people speech has a pattern. All it takes is one nutjob to dox and now everyone has a problem.

              Edit to add further information why anonymization is hard. US survey and statistics data is jittered in a random way to protect the privacy since it is possible to backtrack the statistics to the person who answers the survey. I think it was explained in a minutephysics video.

              That is a whole government department dealing with sensitive data and mathematical proof that their survey result is anonymous. What can a law firm do to guarantee anonymization? Remember, guarantee is a strong word here as it carries legal implication for the firm. If the firm cannot guarantee anonymization, then the company would not want to be liable when shit hits the fan.

        • RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          7 months ago

          Would you give candid testimony if you knew that your boss - let alone the general public - were going to see it later?

          The breakdown you are wanting shouldn’t be generally available within LMG, let alone publicly available.

      • StereoTrespasser@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I think you need to sit back and reevaluate your position in this situation. You have no right to that information, and even if you did, nobody involved would care about your opinion.

        • Crismus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          I never said it was my right. I said that if they want people to believe them, they will need to show the report.

          If not, I treat them as I would any other money first company with a clueless owner. I probably won’t be the only one turned off.